Daniel Camenzuli

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking compensation based on an alleged oral agreement for client referrals.

The defendant argued the agreement was for profit-sharing and that the matter was unsuitable for summary judgment due to disputed facts and credibility issues, particularly given the limitations on cross-examination under simplified procedure rules.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding genuine issues requiring a trial, as the conflicting evidence regarding the oral agreement's terms and the parties' credibility could not be resolved on a summary judgment motion.

The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed by consent.

This appeal concerned a real estate transaction where the purchaser missed the closing payment deadline by 35 minutes, leading the vendor to terminate the contract based on a "time is of the essence" clause.

The appellant purchaser sought a declaration that the vendor breached the agreement and that the contract was unconscionable, also seeking damages.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the application judge's decision that the strict enforcement of the payment deadline was valid.

The court found no palpable and overriding error in the interpretation of the agreement, the application of the "time is of the essence" clause, or the finding that the contract was not unconscionable, emphasizing the clear contractual language and prior warnings given to the sophisticated parties.

This is a costs endorsement following a decision on two related applications.

The Umbrio Parties were partially successful in their application, securing a net payment of $69,256.

The court rejected the Leonardelli Parties' argument that their offer to settle, though close, should shift costs under Rule 49.13, finding the difference material.

The Umbrio Parties sought substantial indemnity costs, but the court awarded partial indemnity costs, stating that litigation complexity alone does not justify a higher scale.

For the cross-application, the court found divided success and awarded no costs.

Ultimately, the Umbrio Parties were awarded $40,000 in partial indemnity costs for their application.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs, which they subsequently abandoned.

The plaintiff had made a "with prejudice" settlement offer, including evidence of financial means, which the defendants did not accept.

The parties could not agree on the costs of the abandoned motion.

The court found the plaintiff's claimed costs reasonable, noting the defendants' lack of due diligence in bringing the motion, their improper focus on a summary judgment motion as frivolous, and the unreasonableness of requiring the plaintiff to prepare responding materials after the settlement offer.

The court awarded the plaintiff costs of $14,500.00 on a substantial indemnity basis for work incurred following the settlement offer, payable within 30 days, rejecting the defendants' request to defer payment.

This case involved cross-applications concerning the dissolution of a business partnership between two investment professionals, Rick Umbrio and Sandra Leonardelli, who co-owned Silveroak Wealth Management Inc. Disputes arose over post-closing adjustments to the purchase price for Leonardelli's shares, division of bank account balances, entitlement to commissions, and liabilities under a sublease agreement.

The court interpreted the Letter Agreement governing the transaction, applying principles of contractual interpretation to determine the correct post-closing adjustment for client assets under management (AUM) and the entitlement to commissions.

The court also addressed claims of breach of a sublease agreement.

The Plaintiffs, Rooney Luh and Jae Luh Holdings, Inc., brought a motion to strike the Defendants' (Ralph Di Pietro, Deborah Di Pietro, and Lancaster Custom Cabinets & Closets Inc.) Counterclaim under Rule 25.11 and sought a separate trial.

The Defendants brought a cross-motion for leave to amend their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim, including adding six new parties as Defendants by Counterclaim.

The court dismissed the Plaintiffs' motion to strike and their request for a separate trial, finding that the Defendants' proposed amendments were legally tenable, disclosed a reasonable cause of action, and did not cause non-compensable prejudice or undue delay.

The court granted the Defendants leave to amend their pleadings, emphasizing the interconnectedness of the claims and parties, and imposed a timetable for discoveries.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend his Statement of Claim to include a claim for unpaid commission from 2016 and to compel the defendant to produce audited financial statements for 2016, 2017, and 2018.

The court granted the motion to amend, finding that the limitation period had not expired because the plaintiff only discovered the potential claim during mediation.

The court also ordered the production of the financial statements, subject to confidentiality conditions, as they were highly relevant to calculating the plaintiff's commission and the summary auditor's letter provided by the defendant was insufficient.

The plaintiff, a former Canada Post employee terminated in 1988, brought an action against his former union and its retained lawyer for civil conspiracy and other torts, alleging they deliberately provided inadequate representation during his grievance.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motions, finding that the essential character of the claim was a Duty of Fair Representation complaint within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canada Industrial Relations Board.

The court also found the claim was statute-barred and, as against the lawyer, an abuse of process attempting to re-litigate previously decided issues.

The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's wrongful dismissal action, arguing it was statute-barred under sections 97(2) and 97(4) of the Employment Standards Act, 2000 (ESA) because the plaintiff had initially filed an ESA claim.

The plaintiff opposed, asserting "special circumstances" due to inadequate legal advice from his paralegal, leading him to withdraw the ESA claim shortly after the statutory two-week period.

The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction, finding special circumstances existed, including the plaintiff's lack of proper legal advice, prompt withdrawal of the ESA claim upon receiving proper counsel, lack of prejudice to the defendant, and no evidence of forum shopping or bad faith.

The defendant's motion was dismissed, allowing the plaintiff's civil action to proceed.

The plaintiff corporation, 1316223 Ontario Inc. (operating as 1,000,000 Comix), brought a motion for the interim recovery of inventory from the defendant, Kostas Giancoulas, or, in the alternative, for its preservation.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for a mandatory order to return inventory to him, asserting personal ownership and seeking to pierce the corporate veil.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for interim recovery due to insufficient description and valuation of the property.

The defendant's cross-motion was also dismissed, as he failed to establish a strong prima facie case for ownership or grounds to pierce the corporate veil.

However, the court granted the plaintiff's alternative request for an interim preservation order, requiring the defendant to preserve all inventory in his possession pending trial, recognizing the significant financial claims against the business.

The applicant sought the release of $25,000 held in trust following a share purchase agreement, which the respondents withheld pending verification of the working condition of returned corporate property (software keys and cell phones).

The court dismissed the respondents' motion to transfer the application to a different venue due to non-compliance with practice directions and the interest of justice.

On the merits, the court found no express or implied term in the agreement authorizing the respondents to impose a unilateral holdback on the share purchase funds for property verification.

The court ordered the release of the remaining funds to the applicant upon the return of the specified corporate property.